21–26 of 26 posts
Some very smart people use questionable theories to get attention (and perhaps a lot of money too). In a way, it's a logical use of their brainpower. Is his theory falsifiable in any way?
This fellow seems a little intellectually insecure to me, his style of writing / communication displayed in both the youtube videos and his theory, he appears to be making it complex to illustrate that he's capable of grasping complex things, rather than needing to illustrate actually complex ideas. The finishing points about "god" without ever really nailing down an empirical definition of the term beyond "indetermi…
It's disappointing that the highest rated comment is essentially ad hominem. I've been aware of the CTMU for many years and was hoping smart folks would engage his ideas. Sadly, it appears the intellectual insecurity here is as great as that attributed to Langan. Arrogance and insecurity may be regrettable traits for getting along with people, but are irrelevant to the truth of a matter. Truth/falsity should be judge…
I don't mean to heap ad hominem on him, I'm simply pointing out that if one is trying to present their ideas then they ought to present them clearly without recourse to attempting to make themselves appear more complex and sophisticated. There are even examples on this very thread of people illustrating much the same ideas as in the original article in a better format.
From a personal perspective, I have a lot of sympathy for him, I watched the entire series of youtube videos about him and I find it something approaching an indictment of humanity that this guy is a bouncer.
I think your dismissive rebuke is just not digging deep enough.
I am always disappointed when someone cloaks their ideas in such thick intellectual veneer. I can't do justice to someone else's voice, but a few minutes were all that was necessary to make the first paragraph sound like a person: (translated from semi-scientific posturing) "One of the things that makes us human is thinking about the big picture. Unfortunately, it's easy to make simple mistakes in the attempt think a…
Do you read scientific journals much? Papers are usually filled with long, grammatically complex sentences full of obscure technical jargon. Given the subject matter, it seems a bit silly to hold the author to a different standard.
He published online, and suffered from no external pressure to obfuscate at all; if he made simple things complex it was from an inability to communicate or a desire to conceal.
This fellow seems a little intellectually insecure to me, his style of writing / communication displayed in both the youtube videos and his theory, he appears to be making it complex to illustrate that he's capable of grasping complex things, rather than needing to illustrate actually complex ideas. The finishing points about "god" without ever really nailing down an empirical definition of the term beyond "indetermi…
I agree, and though I wouldn't presume to place myself anywhere north of the meaty center of the bell curve, I'm nevertheless confident that I can see the Achilles Heel in his world view: he does not hold logic to be a mere tool - one that can be misused, and one with intrinsic limitations. [1] Logic can be misused because it is only as good as one's starting assumptions. Moreover, even when you have some very nice s…